HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

HONG XIN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD TETUAN CHONG + KHENG HOE

The court held that the issue of service of invoices had been decided finally in the substantive suit and therefore could not form the basis of fresh committal proceedings (res judicata / finality of litigation); the committal was premature and an abuse of process under Order 18 r.19; judicial management s.410 did not bar committal per se but was irrelevant because the underlying issue was final; costs awarded on party‑and‑party basis, not indemnity.

Citation
JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Tetuan Chong + Kheng Hoe; Respondent 1: Hong Xin Construction Sdn Bhd; Respondent 2: Low Hui Xiang; Respondent 3: Low Hui Ying
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2025
Case Number
JA-17D-1-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Committal Proceedings – Application to Set Aside Committal Proceedings / High Court Judgment (interlocutory)
Outcome
Applications at Lampiran 33 and Lampiran 35 allowed; Ex parte order dated 29.10.2024 set aside; Notice of Application dated 30.10.2024 at Lampiran 29 cancelled; committal proceedings dismissed as abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Finality of Litigation, Res Judicata, Judicial Management (s.410 Companies Act 2016), Order 18 R.19 Striking Out, Service of Documents, Fraud on the Court, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Contempt of Court Costs Law Professional Conduct Finality of Litigation Res Judicata Judicial Management (s.410 Companies Act 2016) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tetuan Chong + Kheng Hoe

Applicant/plaintiff

Hong Xin Construction Sdn Bhd

Respondent 1

Low Hui Xiang

Respondent 2

Low Hui Ying

Respondent 3

Procedural Posture

Committal Proceedings – Application to Set Aside Committal Proceedings / High Court Judgment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an affidavit alleged to be false can ground committal when the underlying facts have been finally decided
  2. 2 Whether moratorium under s.410 Companies Act 2016 bars committal proceedings against a company or its directors
  3. 3 Whether costs on indemnity basis are appropriate for alleged abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of service of invoices had been decided finally in the substantive suit and therefore could not form the basis of fresh committal proceedings (res judicata / finality of litigation); the committal was premature and an abuse of process under Order 18 r.19; judicial management s.410 did not bar committal per se but was irrelevant because the underlying issue was final; costs awarded on party‑and‑party basis, not indemnity.

Court Disposition

Applications at Lampiran 33 and Lampiran 35 allowed; Ex parte order dated 29.10.2024 set aside; Notice of Application dated 30.10.2024 at Lampiran 29 cancelled; committal proceedings dismissed as abuse of process.

Orders

  • Lampiran 33 allowed
  • Lampiran 35 allowed